FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

July 01, 2019 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The developer of a New York City high rise and the project's former prime contractor are trading unusually nasty safety related accusations in a dispute over the contractor's exit from the project. The contractor, New York City-based Pizzarotti, claims the settlement of the structure in soft soils creates hazards in future work that could send building components crashing to the streets. In reply, developer Fortis Property Group says the contractor’s uneven pace of work is to blame for what it sees as only slab misalignments that don’t compromise safety in any way. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

---

Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

February 24, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
ATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations. 1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced. However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply. The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

November 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Orvido, Florida city council wants to encourage commercial development, and they’re willing to do it by discouraging residential development. The impact fees for commercial buildings have dropped sharply, the Orlando Sentinel notes that for a 50,000 square-foot office building, the city is reducing the impact fee from $2,890 to $1,575, a drop of $1,313, nearly half. Meanwhile, the impact fee for single-family homes has seen an increase of seven percent, going from $3,195 to $3.433. The city is clear about its reasons. “We’re very heavy on the residential side. We want to have more high-paying jobs come into the city,” said Keith Britton, a member of the council. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

May 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In an unpublished decision, the California Fourth Appellate District Court has reversed the judgment of Judge Linda B. Quinn of the Superior Court of San Diego. In the case Inland California, Inc. v. G.A. Abell, Inland, a general contractor had subcontracted with Apache Construction and Precision Electric Company (G.A. Abell).



Apache alleged that extra demolition and drywall work was needed due to Precision’s electrical work. Inland tendered a defense of Apache’s claims. However, Precision did not provide any defense. Inland withheld payment from Precision.



At trial, Inland “conceded Precision earned the $98,000 in progress payments Inland withheld.” They were obligated to additionally pay Precision’s costs and attorney fees.



The Fourth Appellate District court has overturned this and remanded the case back to the lower court. The judges determined that Precision was obligated to defend itself against the claims raised by Apache and therefore vacated the judgment against Inland.



Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence

May 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
The Third Circuit followed Pennsylvania law in determining that damage caused by faulty workmanship did not arise from an occurrence. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. R. M. Shoemaker Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6093 (3d Cir. March 27, 2013). The County sued R. M. Shoemaker, alleging faulty construction of an addition to a correctional institution. The County alleged Shoemaker negligently supervised its subcontractor, thereby permitting the subcontractor to engage in willful misconduct, resulting in damage to structural elements of the correctional institution. The County alleged that Shoemaker's negligence permitted water to intrude, damaging the electrical systems, acoustic ceilings and miscellaneous equipment. Zurich sought a declaratory judgment that it was not required to defend or indemnify Shoemaker. The district court granted Zurich summary judgment. Relying on Pennsylvania law, the district court found that the allegations in the underlying action did not arise from an occurrence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Coloradoans Deserve More Than Hyperbole and Rhetoric from Plaintiffs’ Attorneys; We Deserve Attainable Housing

January 09, 2015 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
As the 2015 Colorado legislative session gets underway, the media attention and discussion regarding the lack of attainable housing, skyrocketing rental rates, and the ongoing state and local efforts to reverse these trends have risen to a dull roar. The hyperbole and rhetoric from those who would oppose any reforms has risen to cacophonous levels. Among the most often quoted talking points from the opposition are that any changes to Colorado’s existing laws would strip homeowners of their right to seek redress for construction defects and that they would virtually insulate construction professionals from such claims. The long and the short of it is that if this year’s legislation looks anything like SB 220 from last year, nothing could be further from the truth. The two main provisions from SB 220 were: 1) protection of a construction professional’s ability to resolve construction defect claims through arbitration; and 2) requirement of informed consent of more than 50% of the owners within a common interest community before a construction defect action could begin. Neither of these changes would strip homeowners of any rights and they certainly would not insulate construction professionals from construction defect actions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

December 27, 2021 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The General Rule in California: The Winner Does NOT Receive Attorney Fees and Costs: There is a common misconception that court decisions require the loser in a lawsuit to reimburse the winner for the fees and costs incurred during the lawsuit. Reliance on this misconception in developing a legal strategy for dealing with disputes is a serious strategic error. Where the legal issue is, for example, “breach of contract,” the general rule in California is that there are only two methods by which the winning litigant will be awarded the attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing or defending the lawsuit. The first of these is if the contract in question contains an effective attorney fee clause specifically providing that the prevailing party will recover their attorney fees and costs. The second is if there is a statute on point which provides that the prevailing party will be awarded those fees and costs. The general rule in California is that each party pays their own attorney fees and costs, unless there is an independent legal basis that provides otherwise. This is known as the “American Rule,” used throughout most of the country. The Issue is Important Because Spending More Money Than You Can Be Awarded is a Losing Strategy: The importance of whether the prevailing party in a lawsuit will be awarded their fees and costs cannot be underestimated. The party contemplating whether to bring a lawsuit must seriously consider whether it is even worth the trouble. In many cases, unless the one bringing the lawsuit (the “plaintiff”) is entitled to be reimbursed for the considerable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the case, it is just not worth doing so. There is no point spending $50,000 on attorneys on a $40,000 claim unless the plaintiff can be awarded both the $40,000 and the $50,000 if the plaintiff wins. Unless fees and costs are awarded, the plaintiff will still be out $10,000 in the very best of cases. For a party sued (the “defendant”) a similar situation arises in that the defendant faces the reality that it may be less expensive to just pay on a frivolous or false claim than to fight it. Either scenario is unsatisfactory. On the whole, it is beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract when either a plaintiff or a defendant must vindicate its rights. Both deserve to be fully compensated to achieve justice. It is also beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract to encourage the one who is at fault to resolve the case rather than risk paying the fees and costs of the other party who is likely to win the case. In either case, the presence of an attorney fee clause facilitates the party in the right and encourages resolution outside of litigation. These are admirable societal goals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Contractor Definition Central to Coverage Dispute

July 22, 2024 — Stacy R. Goldscher & Tracy M. Lewis - Wood Smith Henning & Berman
How do you define the term "contractor?" In the case of California Specialty Insulation Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. B324805 (2024), the court ultimately honored the reasonable expectations of the insured and ordered that the insurer defend and indemnify in an underlying suit stemming from the policy. This case involves a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Allied) to California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI). The central issue is whether Allied World is obligated to defend and indemnify CSI against a negligence claim stemming from a construction site accident. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of a policy exclusion for bodily injury to employees of any "contractor," a term not defined in the policy. Factual Background In 2017 Air Control Systems. Inc. (Air Control) was contracted to perform improvement work at a Los Angeles building and subsequently hired CSI to install duct insulation. In 2019, Jason Standiford, and Air Control employee, filed a negligence lawsuit against CSI, alleging injuries from a 2017 incident where a CSI employee allegedly drove a scissor lift into a ladder Standiford was on, causing him to fall. CSI requested Allied World to defend it in the Standiford lawsuit. Initially, Allied World accepted the defense, but later withdrew, citing the Contractor Exclusion in the policy. CSI filed for declaratory relief, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of CSI, finding the term contractor ambiguous and construing it in CSI's favor. Allied World appealed the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Stacy R. Goldscher, Wood Smith Henning & Berman and Tracy M. Lewis, Wood Smith Henning & Berman Ms. Goldscher may be contacted at sgoldscher@wshblaw.com Ms. Lewis may be contacted at tlewis@wshblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---